| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
27 Jan 2003 : Column 683—continued
10.58 pm
Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West): The agencies of the Lord Chancellor's Department, such as the Land Registry, the Public Record Office, the Court Service and the Public Guardianship Office deserve attention from a Select Committee—not in opposition to the Government but to raise some of the issues that
Members of Parliament and their constituents face when dealing with the systemic success or failure of parts of the Department.We should recognise that some of the ministerial responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor and the Parliamentary Secretaries merit the attention of the Select Committee—in which I have an interest—in terms of either support or questioning. The Committee could get Ministers and their leading officials to justify their approach to matters that affect people the length and breadth of the land.
One might make a series of party political points, but they would not be appropriate at present. It is important to realise that all Departments, including the Lord Chancellor's Department, and Government agencies have serious responsibilities.
To refer to one of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), we have too many Departments and it is not sensible to load responsibility for matters such as information technology on to Under-Secretaries in each Department. It is not sensible to tie such responsibilities to a junior Minister, when we do not get a cross-cutting Government report on what is happening with IT across the board. Such a report need not be in great depth, but just enough depth so that people can understand. One could take up various issues if there were a way to use perhaps the Liaison Committee to talk to the Prime Minister about unpacking some of the public relations spin that the Government put out.
This motion is overdue. Although the Select Committee may not be the most exciting in terms of the television cameras and the microphones, there will be possible benefits to the population. If the Lord Chancellor's Department and its agencies are helped to carry out their responsibilities, the public at large will benefit. There are degrees of justice and injustice in the Department's purview that deserve attention, which is why I hope the House will support the motion.
11 pm
Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh): I should like to make just a few points in contributing to the debate. First, the proposed Select Committee will have a particular responsibility, because it will attempt to shadow a Department, the principal Minister of which is based in the other place and therefore unable to answer questions on the Floor of the House. Apropos of that, it is worth recalling that in last week's debate on House of Lords reform, a very interesting suggestion was made: that it might be possible to change the arrangements of the House. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) is nodding. In fairness, he may have made that suggestion.
Andrew Mackinlay: It was one of my good ideas, which will not be implemented in my lifetime—
Mr. Francois: If I recall correctly, to do the hon. Gentleman justice, he suggested that it might be possible to change our arrangements, by mutual agreement between both Houses, to allow Ministers in another place to come here occasionally to answer questions.
I presume that that would be reciprocated in turn. That interesting suggestion bears further examination, and it is worth putting it on record again in the context of this evening's debate, perhaps to try to keep the suggestion alive, as it could be valuable.Secondly, I should like to reiterate some of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about the dangers of the so-called ratchet effect. We are not here this evening to debate the economic condition of the country, but having read the business pages of the national newspapers, it is fair to say that the economic conditions are now turning a little more difficult than they were a year or so ago—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is right: we are not here to discuss the economic conditions of the country. Perhaps he will return to the motion under discussion.
Mr. Francois: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am pleased that we both agree. However, the point is that at a time when people will be looking more closely at how we in Parliament spend their money, it is very important that we can justify to all our constituents that we spend it effectively. If they see more and more Select Committees taking more and more overseas trips—in effect, ultimately, at their expense—there is a risk that they will grow increasingly irritated.
It is fair to say that the Select Committee might be tempted to travel the world to see other judicial systems in action—perhaps those in Europe, the United States and Asia to cite three examples off the top of my head—to compare them with our own. The Select Committee, if it is established, will therefore have to show restraint in that regard. May I say briefly in my own defence that the Select Committee on which I serve—the Environmental Audit Committee—has been particularly abstemious in that regard. We have had one overseas trip—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the motion relates to the proposed Select Committee's terms of reference.
Mr. Francois: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In that case, I shall not mention that the Environmental Audit Committee spent two nights in Germany at very small public expense.
Another issue is that the Chairman of the proposed Select Committee will, of course, be a member of the Liaison Committee. That will give its Chairman a right to ask the Prime Minister questions at the sittings that will be arranged from time to time. The practical issue is that I am given to understand that there is some friendly competition and jockeying of position among the various Committee Chairmen about who gets the chance—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the membership of the Committee, but merely the establishment of it.
Mr. Francois: I shall abide by your stricture, Madam Deputy Speaker. My sole point was that there would be more competition over who got to ask the question.
On modernisation, since the introduction of the changes, there has been tremendous pressure on all of us—even more than previously—to be in two or even three places at once. I notice that that issue even cropped up in the national press over the weekend. Establishing yet another Select Committee, on which some Members will wish to serve, increases the pressure on Members across the House to be in even more places at once. That additional pressure results from the introduction of changes by the Leader of the House, and the establishment of this Committee will impose an additional burden.
Mr. John McWilliam (Blaydon): Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that we should not have another Select Committee to scrutinise public expenditure that has not heretofore been scrutinised?
Mr. Francois: I am attempting to make the point that if we create an additional Select Committee, and we appoint Members to it, that will increase the pressure on those Members to be in different places at once during the week. All Members are experiencing that pressure as a result of the changes.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, we are not this evening discussing the membership of the Committee.
Mr. Francois: I was simply doing my best to respond to the question that was asked of me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not responsible for the questions that are asked.
Peter Bottomley: If my hon. Friend looks at the list of ministerial responsibilities on page 41, he will see that one Under-Secretary—not one on the Front Bench now—has responsibility for freedom of information. If Members were criticised for not being in the House, would it be fair for that Under-Secretary to be on the Bench the whole time, while the number of MPs, journalists—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That intervention is not relevant to this debate, either.
Mr. Francois: I know that this question is close to the heart of the Leader of the House because of the close and fraternal relationship that he enjoys with the Lord Chancellor. I am therefore sure that he will read our deliberations with tremendous interest in Hansard tomorrow morning, and that he will be forever grateful for everything that we have had to say about his noble Friend.
11.8 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): I want to refer specifically to the motion. It refers to
- "consideration of individual cases and appointments".
Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House has said, the motion also refers to
- "the administrative work of courts and tribunals".
However, I put to the Minister the point that I put to my right hon. Friend: our constituents write to us and complain about judges; we reply "I'm sorry. Parliament cannot interfere in the discretion of judges." I am in a long-running correspondence in which my constituent says "I'm complaining not about the judge's decision, but about his demeanour. He was out of touch. He wasn't listening to the arguments."
Therefore, I should like a clear steer from the Minister that the Committee really will be concerned with the pure administrative work, and that nothing in the wording of the motion will give a lead for it to start interfering in the way in which judges are running their own courts.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |